read_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds valuable context about the return format: it returns parsed YAML frontmatter plus markdown body, which helps the agent know what to expect. Could add more (e.g., what happens if path doesn't exist), but with strong annotations this is well covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise single sentence with zero wasted words. Front-loads the verb+resource and delivers the key behavioral detail (parsed YAML + markdown body) efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a single self-evident parameter, strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and an output schema explaining return shape, the description is largely sufficient. The only gap is error behavior (missing path, invalid YAML), but for a low-complexity tool this is acceptable. Sibling tools are well differentiated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden for the single 'path' parameter. The description implies path is a note path to read but doesn't explicitly define it beyond the tool's purpose. With only one self-evident parameter ('path' strongly implies a file location given the tool name and description), the implied semantics are sufficient; a baseline of 3 is surpassed by the clear frontmatter/body context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read one note' with specific detail on output format (parsed YAML frontmatter plus markdown body). Distinguishes from siblings like write_note (writing) and list_recent/search_wiki (searching/listing). Slightly loses a point for not explicitly contrasting with get_links, but purpose is specific and readable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you need the content of a single note, and the 'one note' phrase contrasts with list_recent (listing notes). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or what alternatives to prefer (e.g., when you want only metadata vs content, or when the path is unknown and search_wiki would be better).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.